Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erin Barley-Maloney


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  A  Train talk 07:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Erin Barley-Maloney

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

De-prodded for "standards not clear". Verbatim prod: Fails WP:GNG with only WP:ROUTINE sources, mentions, and blogs. Professional women's leagues do not currently have presumed notability in WP:NHOCKEY for its players because it is inconsistently covered in the media and this player is a prime example why it is not included. She played 6 games in the NWHL and she gets four hits in Google news, two of which is the NY Rangers local blog that also covers the Riveters team. All four hits are merely mentions that she got injured, which could also qualify as WP:ONEEVENT. In a general search, all hits are of stats pages, pictures, lists, signings, etc. Nothing of non-routine, reliable and significantly in depth about the subject. End of prod statement Basically I am saying while I believe some in the NWHL are notable, this player that played a third of a season and does not appear to be notable with the severe lack of GNG-worthy sources appearing to back that up. Yosemiter (talk) 12:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 12:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 12:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 12:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment GNG definitely applies. For women's hockey, NHOCKEY is not useful except for olympics and world championships. She may have some notability in college hockey. I'll look that up. Alaney2k (talk) 13:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am aware GNG applies, that is why it was my very first statement in the original prod. You can view my linked searches above as well. I saw only routine coverage for college and then several sources mentioning the original signing to the Riveters, but nothing more than that (and most were either primary, local, or non-independent). Yosemiter (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep After adding info to the article, I think there is sufficient coverage to get GNG. She is mentioned in several news articles over her lifetime. Kind of borderline as her play with the Riveters is undetermined. Of course, the whole NWHL seems to be dissed by wp:hockey, so I expect the article to be deleted. Alaney2k (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You just said yourself, she has been mentioned, which only proves she exists. What you added (other than citation clutter) is lots of rosters and WP:ROUTINE mentions. I want an in-depth article about her from a non-primary reliable source (not a blog, which even if we were to count SB Nation as a good source, she doesn't have that either; the most in-depth here is a WordPress blog). If you dig deep enough, you could find my youth sports stats too somewhere, that won't suddenly make me any more notable. This is biggest stretch of all the Keep votes I have seen. I do think some women hockey players, especially Olympic and National Team players, are notable. Very likely the NWHL players could fit into NHOCKEY#2 (although all players are a long ways off from 200 games with only about 40 total NWHL games ever played) and #3 (although winners have also already met NHOCKEY through OLYMPIC and Nat. Team appearances.) I applaud your efforts, but sometimes you should just look at the sources and ask "Are any of these GNG?" That exact question is how the men's qualifications for NHOCKEY has become much more strict. I have nominated and mostly deleted about 100 male players as well. On another note, I also could find no NWHL game reports that ever had her play a minute in a game. The only source I found with the NWHL games is Elite Prospects. Yosemiter (talk) 01:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, her actual playing seems to be in doubt. Six games by some accounts, none by others. Alaney2k (talk) 14:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You are also an experienced enough editor to know that canvassing/votestacking such as here is a big nono. Continuing to do that could wind up with you blocked for disruptive editing. -DJSasso (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I provided appropriate notice, that's all. Your comments come across as intimidation, especially as I am an experienced editor. Alaney2k (talk) 14:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You notified an editor who did not take part in editing the article. One who meets the following from the votestaking link I provided. "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion." As such it was not an appropriate notification. -DJSasso (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete I did a search while it was proded, and like Yosemiter I could not find any sources that meet GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: No evidence she played internationally, nor that she meets the GNG. Think the deprodder could've been a bit more honest there.   Ravenswing   16:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment You have to read stuff outside of the men's hockey world to get it. This was only the second woman to make it from Raleigh to Cornell and the pro level. Alaney2k (talk) 00:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Reply: I expect I'm the only commenter here who's been a season ticket holder for a women's college hockey team, never mind driving two hours to see Erin Whitten's AHL debut (if but an exhibition game, alas). But that being said, c'mon: that's an WP:ITSIMPORTANT argument.  What notability guideline is satisfied by being the Xth woman to go from Y town to Z college to the pros?  Answer: zero.  This is not a matter of "getting it," except in so far that you're far too experienced a Wikipedia editor to be unaware that we go on the guidelines and on the GNG, and nothing else matters.  The answer to "But women's hockey just isn't covered by reliable media sources" isn't "oh well, then we're going to waive GNG/BIO/WP:V where women's hockey subjects are concerned."  It's that if they don't meet the GNG, they don't get articles.   Ravenswing   00:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I would have held season tickets for the UConn women's hockey team when I was there, but for the fact admission was free. I probably would have gotten a substantial student discount like I did for the men's though - we were of the few schools in the country to even charge students anything for that. And we were in Atlantic Hockey at the time, which was and still is the worst conference. And for many years we were the worst team in the worst conference. Rather ironically, now that we're in Hockey East and actually doing decently, student tickets for men's hockey are free, as is the bus ride over to Hartford from Storrs. But all this is a digression. Point is that, like said, none of this matters. WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep. What matters is whether she passes WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY (or some other notability criterion - I remember one AfD came up about a former women's hockey player who arguably passed WP:NPROF, so you never know.) And she doesn't. And I'll note that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument to use with regards to notability either. Some have criticized our notability criteria for athletes compared to a profession they view as more worthy, like academia. But the fact is that a mediocre soccer player who played three professional games is going to get more media coverage than the vast majority of professors. Whether they should or not is irrelevant. That's not for us to judge. This is besides the point of this AfD, just pointing out that this works both ways - someone who should receive press coverage but doesn't is non-notable. Someone who shouldn't receive press coverage but does is notable. We care about what is the case, not what ought to be the case. Smartyllama (talk) 01:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Reply As I've said before, I think NHOCKEY is flawed. I have no disagreement with GNG. I do not expect the same number of articles or media sources for women's hockey as current men's hockey. It's like men's hockey 80 years ago, and I find it impossible to find media sources for back then. Are we to delete old-time players? Maybe? Newspapers had limited paper. No in-depth interviews back in the 20s, or profiles or mentions other than routine mentions. Today we have blogs, websites, social media. I think looking strictly in the sports media is flawed. Alaney2k (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Mmm, but I think we look at the same thing and derive different conclusions. You see the threadbare coverage that women's hockey gets and conclude that we must therefore declare blogs, websites and social media to be valid sources which satisfy the GNG.  I see the threadbare coverage women's hockey gets and conclude that for the most part it does not, then, meet the GNG. (rant warning) Honestly?  I would love for the world to take more notice of women's hockey; it's skillfully played, it's fast, it's hockey.  But for whatever reason, the world just does not much care. I may not like it.  I very much doubt that you and Hmlarson do.  But we do not get to rewrite Wikipedia's notability guidelines just because there's a group or an activity out there that the media ignores.  Neither NHOCKEY, nor the GNG, nor Wikipedia generally are for forcing the world to pay attention to women's hockey.   Ravenswing   23:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I know I've said it before but WP:HOCKEY doesn't include top women's leagues. WP:GNG appears to be met. Thanks for your work . Hmlarson (talk) 01:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, she was listed on the roster for 6 games, but I can find no game reports or summaries that actually have her playing a minute in the NWHL. Accordining to this she may have never played in a regular season game.Yosemiter (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment Due to the addition of "references" (basically every cite with the subject's name) for this person and two keep votes claiming GNG from and, I will actually analyze each one to stop others from wasting time:
 * A list of every hockey player connected to Raleigh, NC (also just a stats site)
 * A roster list (routine mention)
 * A routine report talking about drafted NWHL players from Cornell, of which, the subject was not one. She is merely mentioned at the end as having signed. Entire content about the subject: The four-team National Women’s Hockey League will have four former Big Red players — forward Erin Barley-Maloney, goalies Jenny Scrivens and Lauren Slebodnick and defenseman Alyssa Gagliardi — on its rosters when its inaugural season begins in mid-October. (Also this is actually reprint from USA Today's Ithaca affiliate the Ithaca Journal, a reference used again in the page)
 * Having a really hard time reading the "profile" from the The Tennesseean, (it has incorrect data in the cite: "In the Ice Age" Feb 18, 1994, Page 42) however, are we really calling a couple of blurbs with a local 5-year-old hockey player notable? The article itself, is not about the subject directly as she is one of several youth players and ice skaters talked about and is of the "in other news" routine local weekend interesting events section.
 * The aforementioned WordPress blog, an unreliable source where the blogger only actually was active for 6 months
 * A list of every player from 2001 to 2007 to have played for Team Carolina.
 * Primary source and routine signing coverage
 * A roster list
 * High School All-Stars list
 * SB Nation (take its reliability as you will) coverage of a routine signing
 * A Facebook post – When has that ever been used as a GNG-worthy source? (I was fairly certain using Facebook as s source was frowned upon due to being irretrievably deleted?)
 * All-Academic team list
 * An article primarily about the UVM women's basketball team – She is mentioned in the "In other sports" section: Freshman forward Erin Barley-Maloney became the first Catamount to be selected to a Hockey East all-conference team when she was named to the Hockey East All-Rookie Team
 * A primary article from her sports conference about her routine signing
 * Six recruits will help replace big losses for Big Red Local paper with basically no content in relation to subject: After graduating the most successful senior class in program history and losing its leading scorer to Team Canada, the Cornell women's hockey team will seek to retool for the upcoming season. Defensemen Lauriane Rougeau and Laura Fortino, along with forward Erin Barley-Maloney, led the Big Red to four consecutive Ivy League titles and three appearances in the NCAA "Frozen Four" before graduating this spring And that is the only mention there.
 * Same local paper, earlier time, talking about the graduating seniors on the hockey team
 * Appears to possibly be the student-run Cornell news? Hard to tell as it does not have an author, date, or publisher anywhere in the article itself. University papers are not typically considered independent. On the otherhand it still only has one paragraph about the subject and that she signed in the NWHL and that she did because another player told her to.
 * "CU Trio To Join CWHL" and it talks about the CWHL, not the NWHL. Enitre content about the subject is a single mention: The four-team National Women’s Hockey League will have four former Big Red players — forward Erin Barley-Maloney, goalies Jenny Scrivens and Lauren Slebodnick and defenseman Alyssa Gagliardi — on its rosters when its inaugural season begins in mid-October.
 * Mentions she got injured and hasn't played a game in the NWHL, so the team signed two more players. This is routine coverage other players and she gets mentioned a few times.
 * SB Nation routine coverage of a couple more signings, but not even hers. Full mention: Amber Moore and Taylor Holze (until her abdominal injury) were more-or-less regulars in the lineup because of Erin Barley-Maloney’s undisclosed injury.
 * Photo album, she is in one
 * An article about student athletes, she is captioned in a picture of her studying. Absolutely zero other content about her there.
 * SB Nation season preview, she is in a list of non-returning players.
 * So I have to ask, which of these articles pass GNG as "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Yosemiter (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * All of them are independent of the subject and they seem to be reliable. That leaves significant. That is a subjective term. A women player will likely never receive as much coverage. And this player is not a top player. This player is borderline as a pro, but was a top player on a top team in college. And seems to have had to give up the hockey career. So, she was notable as a women's pioneer in hockey growing up, made it to college, did well but was not the top player and gave up on the pro game. That's how I would sum her up. I suggested she is a keep but I never claimed this was a shoo-in. In comparison, we have tons of men's stubs, but here we have one who had a career we can examine. Who was covered in photo shoots, in charity games and college championships and as an example of a top notch academic in hockey. A lot more coverage than you or I have in the media. Alaney2k (talk) 05:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If a man had these credentials (and thousands do over the last 100 years) they would have been prodded and deleted without argument, so why would we suddenly lower the standards of GNG just because she is a woman? There are questionable men's articles (players from a 100 years ago, players from other countries with only non-English sources, etc), but that is not the concern here (and perhaps should be taken up at the NHOCKEY page instead). We are looking solely at GNG. We have 23 sources here:
 * 7 are straight forward lists of no other content,
 * 2 are captions in a photo,
 * 6 (5 as one is actually the same exact article) are about her signing a contract (which is defined as routine and run-of-the-mill events, is published for every player ever all the way down to the semi-pro and junior levels),
 * The twice used one is about players in drafted to different league entire, she gets mentioned once in passing along with others – not about her
 * The NWHL post is absolutely NOT independent, they must post signings.
 * The SB Nation site can be reliable for routine info, but in the end they really are just a narrowly focused blog that will re-post every transaction they feel is relevant to their readership, so I personally have never considered it very independent.
 * Any news written by her own athletic conference is NOT independent as they will of course have blurb about (even 16th round draft picks in baseball will get mention by the local news, school, conference, etc.)
 * Her school news paper is NOT independent
 * 2 local news sources that talk about her as a part of group that has graduated.
 * 2 that mentions that got injured, neither article is about her
 * One from her school sports section mentions she won All-Rookie, it consists of one sentence.
 * A profile by a WordPress blogger with no notability and only blogged for a few months. Every angsty teen and their aunt had a WordPress blog in 2000s.
 * A local news article about the local ice rink in Nashville. As a 5-year-old, she was talked as a local interest piece. I actually have had an article like this with me in it (it was about the local ski school) when I was twelve and I too said I wanted to be an Olympian (spoiler warning: I'm not).
 * And a Facebook post
 * So even if were to lump all the sources for her routine signing of a contract as one time of significant coverage, we certainly lack any for anything else. I could probably find my name 30 times on the internet as well for youth sports, charity events, and even a picture or two. Yosemiter (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There we go, the crux is some sort of dumbing-down of Wikipedia or hockey articles. Like hockey articles are inherently something to be discussed so seriously. I've made my points. Women's hockey is not going to be comparable to men's. You guys make that comparison over and over, as some sort of independent subjective analysis. I worked on the article, from the sources out there, so that we could look at the info as best as is available. I said a couple of times, it's debatable. You delete, I would keep. Alaney2k (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "All of them are independent of the subject and they seem to be reliable." It pains me to say this, Alaney2k, because you've been active for years in hockey articles, but this right here completely discredits your argument and your vote both.  You're seriously claiming that Facebook posts, Wordpress blogsites and online photo albums are reliable???  You're seriously claiming that websites for the leagues in which the subject's playing are independent?  We would be hard pressed to resist airy dismissal of such assertions from a newbie editor.   Ravenswing   14:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd say then that most men's professional players then are not notable also as their coverage is not independent. TSN, ESPN, Fox Sports and on and on all carry the games and depend on them for readership. Like I said elsewhere, you guys are taking this way too seriously, like hockey is a serious matter. Hey, I'm Canadian, I understand. But it's not an objective science and never will. If you want to take it to university debating level, I think that's too much. I have one !vote. You guys make it seem like a conspiracy. Alaney2k (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Except it is a serious matter, when Wikipedia is the biggest website on the planet, it is our jobs as editors to make sure it is maintained properly. You know darn well the difference between a news site and a league owned site. News sites won't do articles on every single minor routine player event like a league website will. They will only report on the notable ones. That is what makes them independant, regardless of if they show games or not. Your line of reasoning would also cancel out every newspaper in the world because they all get read by people for their sports scores. I know you really want all these female players to have articles and I would love for them to meet GNG as well. But they simply don't, wordpress blogs and facebook posts and league posts don't help them too. -DJSasso (talk) 12:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You know, I've posed the same question several times over now to Hmlarson, who has a habit of reflexively and airily claiming that female hockey players in AfDs meet the GNG, and ask her which specific cites she claims does. She has yet to acknowledge the question, let alone address it; I don't expect her to do so now.   Ravenswing   23:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If editors want to engage in constructive discussion with me, they usually ping me + engage in discussion that frequently results in productive work being done on Wikipedia. This type of repeated commentary is unproductive. Hmlarson (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Editors have tried to engage in productive commentary with you, we have asked you to show what cites you think actually meet the GNG, repeatedly, you don't even reply. You appear to just be voting keep solely because they are female, you think we ask you because we are trying to not be productive, but it is the opposite, we would like to see why you think the way you do as opposed to just seeing you as appearing to be only a single purpose editor. -DJSasso (talk) 12:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete There just does not seem to be enough to satisfy GNG. Hopefully the NWHL, CWHL, NCAA, and the SDHL will get to the point where they are stable enough, and receive enough coverage, to warrant inclusion in NHOCKEY criterion soon.  I just don't see it yet.18abruce (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 *  Keep  I feel that Erin Barley-Maloney's notability is being used as a proxy for an agenda, and it is starting to get too acrimonious. I would request that the editors take a deep breath then leave this article as is.  Having said that, here is where I feel we need to come to agreement:  Are WP:NHOCKEY guidelines correctly written?  My sense is that they're not, and that the standard is much higher than nearly any other field of endeavor.  Moreover, it seems that this standard has been set high on purpose based on editorial prerogative.  User:Ravenswing and User:Djsasso have proven themselves to be good editors, but I think the forest has been thoroughly consumed by the trees here.  My point here is that calcified thinking has led us into rather unfortunate acrimony where sources are being ridiculed and personal editorial qualifications being assaulted.  My guess is that we're all trying to make WP better, but this discussion had led things in the other direction. The WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:VOTESTACK allegations by Ravenswing and DJSasso are rather poorly executed attacks to impune the editorial qualifications of Alaney2k. Per the votestacking allegation, you cited his notification to myself.  Do you really think that I have not been involved in this discussion?  Yes I was notified, but I have been involved in this discussion for a while now.  If you think you'd like to take that one to arbitration, good luck!  The soapbox argument, at least, gives me the opportunity to lighten the argument up a bit.  Really??? Soapboxing has been perpetrated by the terrible ultra-feminists and "Right Great Wrongs" crowd?  I think that perhaps a 10K+ defense of the deletion of a professional hockey player is clearly a soapbox of massive proportions.  And yes, as this is a proxy war, Alaney2 and, I hate to admit, myself are all guilty of.  Four 2-minute penalties, time for 3-on-3 hockey (that still happens, right?).   There is a greater emphasis on the fact that it is unfair to defend female hockey players as if they are only footnotes in a male-dominated game than the fact that there are, in fact, notable female hockey players.  It's maddening. Gaelic Games notability; Australian League Football notability; Badminton notability; Baseball notability, and so on, ad nauseum.  To claim that hockey is not an outlier is myopic.  In Badminton, there are a number of articles on players (BTW non-Olympic) who most likely have citations which would be frivolous if applied to this thread.  In baseball, which given it's popularity in North America may (?) be more analagous, one needs to have played in one game of the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League, which existed from 1943 to 1954. Let's argue about the right things.  Fix the guidelines.  Leave Erin Barley-Maloney out of it. Bill McKenna (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I nominated based on GNG and I have actually proposed changes to NHOCKEY. However, I need to ask this because you did not address GNG while voting keep based on her playing professionally (which it appears that she never actually did). Please point out which of the articles seems to pass GNG? (Let's ignore hockey and gender based arguments and go off what actually exists beyond the routine.) Yosemiter (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Change to Delete: While I will stand by my assertions of earlier today, as she would have been qualified under GNG had she played for the Riveters, I was able to discern that she never played a game while on the Riveters (see http://nwhl.hockeyshift.com/stats#/player/57720).  The 6 GP does not hold up.  I went back to her Cornell record and found nothing generally notable.  So, delete, but fix those guidelines.  Bill McKenna (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You're not the first person to claim that the guidelines are flawed because they don't grant presumptive notability to Some Group Of Players you feel are being disadvantaged. My answer, as it always has been, is that NHOCKEY has been changed a number of times, and all you need to do to move consensus is to prove your argument.  Granting presumptive notability to every player in the NWHL is a huge step, and only the top professional leagues in the world, with far greater media coverage and far greater attendance, get there.  Take the Ontario major junior league, for one.  The OHL has immense media coverage.  Many of its games are televised, the teams all have radio deals, and the average attendance at an OHL game is greater than the combined capacity of every NWHL rink combined (let alone actual attendance).  And the Ontario Hockey League is not accorded presumptive notability for its players. So the bottom line here is that I'll be happy to put my two cents worth in to "fix" the standards.  All you need to do is to put the work in to demonstrate that the standards need changing.  To date, not a single advocate for the NWHL's notability has bothered.   Ravenswing   02:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll try to get that effort going. I don't know that I'll start it up tomorrow.  Hockey Task Force page, correct?  Also, respectfully, it's not a matter of attendance or popularity, nor even a matter of article count, but a matter of impact in a field of endeavor.  As an American (US flavor), I don't pay so much attention to the OHL, but as a hockey fan, I know you're right about its popularity.  They don't make the cut because they're not 'top-tier'.  Having said, I'll take the discussion to a more suitble site than an AfD page, hopefully soon.  Kindest regards, Bill McKenna (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Bill its not that you haven't been involved in the discussion, if you read the link to votestacking, it is precisely because you have been involved in previous discussions that makes it votestacking. He notified someone who could be expected to reflexively vote Keep and did not notify people who might be expected to vote the other way, which means it wasn't a neutral notification to all interested parties. And it was proven right because you did indeed come here and automatically voted keep and only later changed to delete when it was obvious this person does not meet the GNG. You are right I do believe it is a proxy for people to try and keep all female hockey articles. I could care less if a player is male female or somewhere in between. I put up articles for deletion that don't meet the GNG. I have put up hundreds of male articles and a tiny handfull of women's articles. So this continued framing that it is about trying to get rid of female articles is ridiculous. In fact I have fixed up many women's hockey articles over the years. My issue is with the continued ignoring of GNG because it doesn't fit certain editors pet projects of what should be notable when society has shown it isn't. -DJSasso (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks DJ. As a matter of clarification, my reversal from keep to delete was that there was a reliable claim the Barley-Maloney played for the Riveters, albeit briefly. Yosemiter asked me to check on GNG, and so I reviewed and did my own digging.  When I found that Elite Prospects, normally a reliable source for historic data, listed her as 6 GP, but the NWHL site said no gamed played I had to conclude that no professional GP meant a GNG.  That is, hopefully, evidence that I am not a reflexive voter, but that I do, in fact spend some time on the subject at hand.  You should also know this from the college hockey task force, where I have carefully considered a number of delete requests, and have often helped move articles off.  I have also been an occasional thorn in your side (maybe not), because I tend to try to rein in some of the excessive deletes.  I generally feel that deletions should be served on articles that are abusively not notable, and there are more than a few.  To me eyes, you are a delete-hawk, but that's more of a matter of philosophy, and I am OK with your point of view.  I suspect we're never going to meet eye-to-eye on that one. Bill McKenna (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the problem DJ had with your reversal is that the sourcing in the article itself didn't actually change, just your presumption that since she played in the NWHL, she should therefore be notable. (I believe she was actually listed on a roster for 6 games, but made no appearances.) The reason this being used as an example for NHOCKEY reasons is that if she had appeared for 30 seconds in an NWHL game, it is unlikely she would have garnered anymore coverage than what is already here, barring any gruesome injury or forced retirement in that one game causing more coverage. Hence, the NWHL has not yet proven to be a "appearance is enough to presume notability" league yet in terms of all players meeting GNG (which is what all NSPORTS should be based on). I have started a discussion here addressing the first steps in recognizing the NWHL in any regard. Some of the subjects there are also questionable and could use some help to prove GNG. Yosemiter (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete hockey players need to pass the notability guidelines for hockey. If those guidelines are flawed, people should seek to change them. Until the guidelines are changed, articles that do not meet them need to be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: Article meets WP:GNG. Boopitydoopityboop (talk) 09:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Has not received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Hence does not meet GNG.  And does not meet any subject-specific notability guidelines either, as far as I can tell.  As a WP:BLP I am particularly reluctant to make an exception here. Rlendog (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.